Connect with us

Politics

Exclusive: Why Other Fundamental Rights Are Safe (At Least for Now) – TalkOfNews.com

Published

on

No Pseudonymity in Challenge to Federal Vaccination Mandate

#Fundamental #Rights #Safe

Unable to show concrete reliance on Roe and Casey themselves, the Solicitor General suggests that overruling those decisions would “threaten the Court’s precedents holding that the Due Process Clause protects other rights.” Brief for United States 26 (citing Obergefell, 576 U. S. 644; Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558; Griswold, 381 U. S. 479). That is not correct for reasons we have already discussed. As even the Casey plurality recognized, “[a]bortion is a unique act” because it terminates “life or potential life.” 505 U. S., at 852; see also Roe, 410 U. S., at 159 (abortion is “inherently different from marital intimacy,” “marriage,” or “procreation”). And to ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.

(4) pp. 71-72 (new in the opinion)

Finally, the dissent suggests that our decision calls into question Griswold, Eisenstadt, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Post, at 4–5, 26–27, n. 8. But we have stated unequivocally that “[n]othing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” Supra, at 66. We have also explained why that is so: rights regarding contraception and same-sex relationships are inherently different from the right to abortion because the latter (as we have stressed) uniquely involves what Roe and Casey termed “potential life.” Roe, 410 U. S., at 150 (emphasis deleted); Casey, 505 U. S., at 852. Therefore, a right to abortion cannot be justified by a purported analogy to the rights recognized in those other cases or by “appeals to a broader right to autonomy.” Supra, at 32. It is hard to see how we could be clearer. Moreover, even putting aside that these cases are distinguishable, there is a further point that the dissent ignores: Each precedent is subject to its own stare decisis analysis, and the factors that our doctrine instructs us to consider like reliance and workability are different for these cases than for our abortion jurisprudence.

The number and clarity of these passages are extraordinary.  To these one could add the separate concurrence of Justice Kavanaugh, who addresses concerns that were raised in the briefs:

First is the question of how this decision will affect other precedents involving issues such as contraception and marriage—in particular, the decisions in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015). I emphasize what the Court today states: Overruling Roe does not mean the overruling of those precedents, and does not threaten or cast doubt on those precedents.

(As an aside, I don’t count Justice Thomas’s view as portending much.  It’s notable that he wrote only for himself.  His views about substantive due process are longstanding, well-known, and idiosyncratic.  No other sitting justice has ever expressed an interest in completely abandoning substantive due process and all of the precedents it has generated.)

The reassurance passages go well beyond mere rote observations that the Court is not overruling these precedents because it has neither been asked to do so nor is it required to do so in order to decide the case before it. The passages are also not mere bald assertions, devoid of substance, which can be dropped without any pretense of consistency.  Instead, they contain two substantive principles.

The first is the Court’s observation that abortion, which involves the taking of what is at least potential human life, has no parallel in other rights-contexts. That distinction is admitted by just about everyone. The Court does not say precisely how this distinction should affect the constitutional analysis of whether the right exists. But I read the Court as suggesting that the analysis of whether a right should be protected turns in part on the countervailing interests at stake in not protecting it–here, the destruction of potential life (the kind of ultimate “moral question” the Court thinks judges cannot or should not resolve). Resolution of the potential life question also goes to the strength of the government’s interest in regulation.

Further, to the extent new rights can be recognized (or old rights can be recognized in new contexts), we do so by analogy.  But there is no analogy close to the abortion right, which is sui generis.  Under this view, the right to same-sex marriage (Obergefell) is at least adjacent to the recognized right to marry (Loving) in a way that the right to end a pregnancy (Roe) is not adjacent to the recognized right to prevent a pregnancy (Griswold).

The second principle is new in this opinion.  The opinion notes that, even if some other substantive due process decisions were initially wrong, the Court should continue to stand by them under stare decisis principles. Specifically, the reliance interests in, say, same-sex marriage are much more concrete.  (Query, however, why the reliance interests in Lawrence and Griswold would be any greater than in Roe.)  Also, protection of the rights to contraception, sexual intimacy, and marriage, are more judicially manageable (workability).  Gay couples have a right to marry on the same terms as others, which does not depend on whether a regulation places an undue burden on that right. It’s an on-or-off switch, not a balancing of incommensurable interests.

I have previously written that overruling Roe would present no “immediate or direct threat” to the various other substantive-due process precedents, including Obergefell.  The Court has now effectively doubled-down on its reassurances about this.  There are simply not five votes to overrule Obergefell or the other decisions.  I’d wager there are not more than two to do so.

Advertisement

It is true, as both Justice Thomas and the dissent point out out, that rights to contraception, sexual intimacy, and same-sex marriage do not fit easily within the Court’s narrow history-and-tradition methodology. That might spell longer-term trouble under a different cast of Justices who may not feel as much obligation to ancestral precedents.

So could ObergefellLawrence, Griswold, and even Loving be overruled sometime in the future? Of course. We know that even half-century-old precedents are not sacred. And the future is a long time. It is a foreign land in which anything can happen. But Dobbs does portend a majority willing to go there.

Politics

Exclusive: The DOJ’s latest filing has even more damning claims against Trump – TalkOfNews.com

Published

on

By

The DOJ’s latest filing has even more damning claims against Trump

#DOJs #latest #filing #damning #claims #Trump

The photograph of highly classified documents strewn across the floor at Mar-a-Lago beside a box of framed Time magazines had already gone viral Wednesday morning as perhaps the defining image of the ongoing investigation into Donald Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified information.

The image was attached to a 36-page filing from the Department of Justice in the ongoing court battle by Trump to have a special master review the documents seized by federal agents when they searched Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s private Florida club and residence, in August. And it’s by no means the most damning claim from the overnight court filing, which you can read below.

  • In the filing, the DOJ asserts that Trump was likely taking efforts to obstruct justice: “The government also developed evidence that government records were likely concealed and removed from the Storage Room and that efforts were likely taken to obstruct the government’s investigation.”
  • Trump’s lawyers claimed to the DOJ there were no other classified documents at Mar-a-Lago in June. After handing over what they claimed were the remaining classified documents in a sealed legal envelope, a Trump lawyer “represented that there were no other records stored in any private office space or other location at the Premises and that all available boxes were searched.” That envelope contained “38 unique documents bearing classification markings including . . . 17 documents marked as TOP SECRET.”
  • The August search warrant at Mar-a-Lago produced “over a hundred classified records including information classified at the highest levels,” including three classified documents that “were located in the desks in the ’45 [Trump’s personal] Office.’”

The filing also contains detailed arguments against the appointment of a special master to review the documents, which Trump has claimed is necessary to review the documents to determine if they contain any privileged material. The DOJ noted a review by a filter team for any privileged information had already been completed. It also pushed back against Trump’s claims of executive privilege to justify holding on to the documents that the National Archives had requested under the Presidential Records Act, noting that there is no precedent for invoking executive privilege “to prohibit the sharing of documents within the Executive Branch.”

Read the DOJ filing

Trump’s lawyers are due to file a response on Wednesday, and a hearing is scheduled for Thursday in the matter before Aileen Cannon, a Trump-nominated federal judge in South Florida.

On his personal social media site, Truth Social, Trump said Thursday morning “Terrible the way the FBI, during the Raid of Mar-a-Lago, threw documents haphazardly all over the floor (perhaps pretending it was me that did it!), and then started taking pictures of them for the public to see. Thought they wanted them kept Secret? Lucky I Declassified!”

Trump has claimed that he had somehow automatically declassified any documents at Mar-a-Lago. There is no evidence that he did so, and his lawyers have not made the same claims in court filings.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Exclusive: Dr. Oz: Abortion is murder from the time of conception, except for when it's not – TalkOfNews.com

Published

on

By

GREENSBURG, PA - MAY 06: Pennsylvania Republican U.S. Senate candidate Dr. Mehmet Oz speaks at a rally in support of his campaign sponsored by former President Donald Trump at the Westmoreland County Fairgrounds on May 6, 2022 in Greensburg, Pennsylvania. Former President Trump endorsed Dr. Oz in the Pennsylvania Republican primary race for the U.S. Senate over his top opponent David McCormick. (Photo by Jeff Swensen/Getty Images)

#Abortion #murder #time #conception #it039s

Oz in his capacity as a physician, the 2019 version of Oz, sounded pretty pro-choice in that interview. “Just being logical about it,” Oz said then, “if you think that the moment of conception you’ve got a life, then why would you even wait six weeks? Right, then an in vitro fertilized egg is still a life.”

Which is apparently what 2022 Oz believes: Life begins at conception and it’s murder no matter what. Or at least that’s what May 2022 Oz said he believed. Now that it’s general election time and he’s not chasing the MAGAiest of the MAGAs for votes, Oz seems to think that maybe abortion is not always murder.

In a town hall meeting this week, Oz found some exceptions to his “100% pro-life” abortion-is-always-murder position: the health of the mother, rape, and incest. That’s a variation on the gaslighting forced birth proponents trotted out when various horror stories about abortion bans started emerging.

Like about the 10-year-old rape survivor who had to travel out of Ohio to obtain an abortion. Or people having miscarriages, or people whose lives are threatened by ectopic pregnancies. Those don’t really count as abortions, they have tried to insist. Terminating those kind of pregnancies, Catherine Glenn Foster, the head of Americans United for Life, testified would fall under any exception and would not be an abortion.

The Oz who was a doctor knows that’s bullshit. Abortion is abortion and it is a safe and essential medical treatment for millions. It is necessary for all kinds of reasons that are nobody’s business other than the person needing an abortion and whomever they wish to involve. No matter how the pregnancy occurred.

“I trust democracy,” Oz said this week in that town hall, trying to change the subject. “I trust your ability to influence our representatives in Harrisburg, which is where this decision should be made. It’s not talked about in the Constitution.”

But if he’s elected to the Senate, and if there’s a Republican majority, he’s going to have to be held accountable on this. Because there will be a Republican bill to create a federal abortion ban and he’ll have to take a position.


Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Exclusive: Bidens To Host Barack And Michelle Obama For White House Portrait Unveiling – TalkOfNews.com

Published

on

By

Bidens To Host Barack And Michelle Obama For White House Portrait Unveiling

#Bidens #Host #Barack #Michelle #Obama #White #House #Portrait #Unveiling

The White House has announced that President and First Lady Biden will be hosting Barack and Michelle Obama for their White House portrait unveiling.

The White House announced in a statement provided to PoliticusUSA, “On Wednesday, September 7, at 1:30 PM ET, President Joe Biden and First Lady Jill Biden will host former President Barack Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama for the unveiling of their official White House portraits.”

Normally, the White House portrait unveiling for the previous president would have taken place a year or two after the previous president left office.

For example, here is George W. Bush’s unveiling ceremony that took place in 2012:

Advertisement

Trump was the reason why Obama’s portrait was not unveiled when it should have been. Trump never scheduled the ceremony, and for his part, Barack Obama had no interest in participating in the ceremony with Trump.

Trump is still accusing Obama of crimes, so there is no doubt that if Trump would have won a second term, Obama would be waiting for him to leave office before unveiling his White House portrait.

Portrait unveilings at the White House are historic, as there are only five living ex-presidents, so anytime one makes a public appearance with the current president, it represents one-sixth of the living individuals who have been/are president.

It will be a special day in the White House, and one that is long overdue as Obama and Biden will be reunited at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Continue Reading

Exclusive

Copyright © 2022 Talk Of News.